roymilleraz

I recently attended a Morrison Institute seminar on education data collection and I was startled by the discussion. We hear repeatedly about the failure of our government schools to educate our children properly in spite of huge amounts of money spent (more per child than any other country). But I was not aware that government can’t even collect the data on student achievement or on teacher performance. Apparently something like $30 million has been spent on this goal over the few decades and we are still failing completely. Now there is another proposal in the legislature to spend another $35 million.

It is mind boggling to me that not one person in that room of over 100 people, many of whom had a terminal degree (PhD or EdD), suggested the idea that maybe education is a function that the government is just not very good at delivering and that maybe we should leave this duty to the private sector, like we do (so far) for distribution of food, a substance just as important, if not more so, than education. Parents could make their own decisions about where their children attend school and charities could subsidize those with insufficient resources. Without the huge government education bureaucracy the cost would be far less and the results far better.

Freedom works. We founded our country on this belief. Let’s try it.

The Salt River Project (SRP) has recently been taking some justifiable flak over their one million dollar “donation” to support the upcoming Super Bowl in Arizona. It is clearly wrong for SRP to do this. SRP has a monopoly on providing water and power in their service territory and they should stick to this job. SRP board members should donate their own money to the Super Bowl and not give away their ratepayers money. Neither SRP nor any other government monopoly should give away money that is taken by force from customers or from taxpayers.

A recent editorial entitled “Copper mine or paradise” was critical of a proposed mine near the town of Superior. The writer suggested that we examine the proposed copper mine site and “See the quiet campsites where people go to escape.” The writer goes on to suggest that we “Follow the ravines where water is carried to the town below. Then envision the nation’s largest copper mine replacing it.”

As a former Board Chair of the Arizona Department of Mines and director of a business association which depends on mining I would rather suggest that readers examine the nearby town of Superior and the obvious poverty which exists today. This once attractive mining town has fallen into disrepair. Imagine the construction of a large and environmentally safe copper mine and the high paying jobs it would produce. This area could once again be a thriving community that produces valuable resources for the nation rather than requiring government subsidies for its citizens to stay alive.

Governor Brewer recently decided not to set up a state insurance exchange for Arizona. She should be complimented for this decision. Approximately 17 states so far have decided to set up these state exchanges. Their governors have stated that the main reason for doing so is to maintain state independence and avoid federal controls.

This level of ignorance about how the federal government operates is breath taking. There are already controls in the Obama care law itself that the states will have to follow and, when the regulations are written implementing the Obama care law, these 17 states will find that they are, once again, captive robots of the federal government. There will be numerous “incentives” and penalties to insure “compliance.”

We should thank Governor Brewer for not being fooled by promises of independence.

Let’s drive off the fiscal cliff. This is a rare opportunity to cut federal government spending. I know it also means a tax increase but it is much harder to cut spending than to cut taxes so let’s take this opportunity to cut spending and then work on reversing the tax increase at a later date.

The Arizona Republic October 23 headline stating that the “Cost of public transit may rise” from $1.75 to $2.00 is misleading. “Cost” is an accounting term that includes all of the various pieces of a given item. In the case of Light Rail, when you include all of these various pieces (construction, maintenance, power, etc) the actual cost of each person who takes the Light Rail is around $13. Since the “price” (the proper name of the increase you were describing) has been $1.75 person, this means that someone other than the rider (in this case it is we taxpayers) is paying the balance. Dividing 11.25 (the taxpayer portion) by 13.00 (the total cost) yields approximately an 86% taxpayer subsidy. With the rise in price to $2 the taxpayer subsidy drops all the way down to 84%.

Last night (Oct 12) I went to the opening of the movie version of Atlas Shrugged (Part II). This is the screen adaptation of Ayn Rand’s epic novel. The movie hit home with me and I think that it will to anyone who sincerely believes in liberty. A couple of examples from the movie will illustrate the point. Early in the movie the government authorities assign a young energetic bureaucrat to “watch over” entrepreneur Hank Reardon’s steel plant to insure that all government edicts that emanate from the concept of “fair share” are being followed. Metals miner Francisco d’Anconia, offers the opinion that we now have “watchers watching watchers” and suggests that this is not a very productive concept.

The movie illustrates how people that are the real producers will not put up with this corruption and theft and stifling of productivity and will simply leave their jobs and drop out. This problem is summarized at the end of the movie with Ayn Rand’s most famous quote from her novel: “when you see that in order to produce you must obtain permission from men who produce nothing… and your laws don’t protect you against them but protect them against you …you may know that your society is doomed.”

Isn’t that exactly where we are in the United States today?

I just returned from another in a seemingly endless series of panels and seminars that address the upcoming Obama Care implementation. One phrase that I kept hearing was that our goal is to achieve “high quality health care at the lowest possible cost.” But is that not the same goal for everything we purchase, whether it is computers, cell phones, automobiles, homes, food, or anything else? With respect to all the items on the list, except for health care, we have achieved this goal through the free enterprise system and competition.

Why do we think that high quality and affordable health care is an exception and will be achieved through a government run program? It will not. We need to go back to a system that we know has worked and that has made us the richest nation in the world. The answer to high quality and affordable health care lies in the free market, not in Washington DC.

In the August 30 Arizona Republic the assertion is made that “The state’s business community has seen [Congressman] Flake do virtually nothing to support economic development.” Such a ridiculous remark can only be made by someone who has no idea of what causes business development. What the author of this article obviously means is that Congressman Flake does not “bring home the bacon” for Arizona. That is because Flake is someone who does understand what causes business development and that is low taxes, limited government regulation, the rule of law, and respect for property rights and contracts.

In every one of these areas Congressman Flake is among the best in the entire Congress. His ratings are high among conservative groups and business organizations. The fact that he is not focused on getting goodies for his constituents should be something that is praised, not lamented.